To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

So say you were a married man whose wife had your third child. The wife then dies from birth complications leaving with you with 3 children under 5. Both of you were working and in well paid jobs before this happened. Are you saying the welfare state shouldn't support you?

Say you are a woman who has 4 children with your husband. You find that you have an STI because your husband has been cheating on you. You find out he's been cheating for years. Once you uncover he's cheating he walks out on you and your 4 children with 3 of them under 5. Both of you were working and in well paid jobs before this happened. Your ex-husband is self-employed and cooks the books not to pay his child maintenance. Are you saying that the welfare state shouldn't support you?

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

But it... isn't.

Example: I was widowed in 2015; my husband in 2018. Obviously we're now married again to each other.

Those widowed in 2015 had an entitlement to widowed parents' allowance until their children were adults. I only lost mine through getting remarried.

By the time 2018 arrived, the widowed parent safety net had been capped at 18 months after the death of the spouse.

Just one small example of the 'welfare state' not working properly.

Damn it, wish I'd thought of that when my husband assaulted me and forced me to be a single parent to my three children!

The welfare state is still there if things go wrong when does the benefit cap apply then? Before or after things go wrong? I don’t understand.

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

Ok yeah so let’s punish kids for decisions made by their parents, seems fair.

Housing allowance of UC is based on how much rent you as the (probably only) adult liable for rent pay. Not an amount per head.

I'd still be paying £800 pm if I had 1 kid or 50.

The "we can't afford it right now" excuse being trotted out is laughable. The government has plenty enough revenue, it's a question of what they prioritise.

Maintaining the cap, and and as a consequence leaving children living in poverty is a choice. The Labour Party is choosing to let children live in poverty.

Agree. Having children growing up in poverty does no-one any favours.

Starmer needs to rethink this one. We can afford to reverse the cap.

Seeing the Cap as a deterrent to having excess children is all very well, but that does nothing about the fact that many of the 3rd children affected by this are living in defacto poverty.

I'm not a fan of punishing children because their parents are perceived as feckless or irresponsible, so it saddens me somewhat to see that in the other threads about this issue, the prevailing attitude of caring, "leftie" mumsnetters appears to be "fuck them kids", and "why should I pay for them".

I thought the two child benefit cap was for all benefits. I didn’t realise you can still get child benefit for a 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on…. And the cap is only on the child element of UC.

I hope they keep it the way it is and use the money on carers allowance to help look after disabled children as that’s a pittance and there’s no options to work as you’re caring for you disabled child. If anyone should be getting help it’s those parents!

Of course, when you fall on hard times, you can just shove the extra kid back up where it came from, eh? That'll teach them a lesson about not being able to see into their future!

There are SO many threads on the cap - it'd be worth commenting on one of those!